The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 18:13, 14 November 2011 [1].

Australian Cattle Dog[edit]

Australian Cattle Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Marj (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, I believe it meets the criteria. It has a significant number of viewers and has remained stable for some time. Marj (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In general the article looks well-made and appropriately referenced. It is also interesting to read. However, in my view its encyclopaedic character is somewhat undermined by the essentially trivial content in the "Famous dogs" section. The (uncited) details under "popular culture", and the "famous owners" information are appropriate for a magazine article but not for an encyclopaedia entry. The stories under "In the news" are diverting but transient, again more magaziney than encyclopaedic. I believe you should rethink this material, with a view to its elimination or drastic curtailment. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. The "In Popular Culture" pre-dates my involvement and is suggested by the Project Dogs and is in other dog breed articles such as the Featured Beagle. I don't think that the movie appearances and celebrity owners add anything to an understanding of the breed, but I'd argue that the news stories do. Will re-think. Marj (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed movie appearances and celebrity owners. Retained "In the news". Marj (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I have created two sub-pages to give additional information on the Halls Heeler and Robert Kaleski. Marj (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the referenced material has been removed. All remaining refs that are duplicated in the body of the article have been removed.
Citations for Tail, Temperament and Activities located and added
Hyphens removed from the one ISBN I missed
Pages added
Location added – I didn’t recognize Freehold as a place :-)
I used the template for Web citations, but different sites don't provide the same information
All locations now given as town, abbreviated state.
Additional reading re-formatted. Marj (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments You've put a lot of effort into this, but I think it needs more work if it is to get through on the first attempt. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The tone is far too pov throughout. In just para 1 we have courageous and tireless… intelligent… loving and playful… loyal and biddable… — Now, I'm sure you can reference these and others, but people who write books about a dog breed are likely to be less than objective about its virtues. Trust them on proper facts, but distance yourself a bit from the adulation. Compare with Beagle, where this sort of thing is buried in the "Temperament" section, whereas in ACD it is splashed across the lead
I've just removed the references for these in response to advice above. Will revise Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are from a book on purebred dogs, not an ACD book, but I've removed them from the lead section. Marj (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''Halls Heeler'' — should there be an apostrophe somewhere?
No, as a breed name there is no apostrophe. Same with Timmins Biters. Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The neck and shoulders are strong and muscular; the forelegs are straight and parallel; and the feet round and strongly arched, with small toes and strong nails — too many strongs.
Too close citing of the standard — have revised to "the feet round and arched, with small, sturdy toes and nails."
  • ''Both colours are born white — doesn't make sense, "varities"
Changed to Both red and blue dogs. No previous mention of "varieties" of dogs.Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merle colouration, — I had to click through a redirect to find what this meant. Either gloss, or link straight to the explanatory page
Added (a speckled effect that has associated health issues)Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • reserved with strangers and naturally cautious in new situations. Its attitude to strangers — two "strangers"
reserved with people it doesn't know Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to does not Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • herd pest animals, from geese to muskox, — since when are geese and muskox pest species? Do you get muskox in OZ?
I guess any animal in the wrong place is a pest animal (different from a pest species). I didn't add this information but a breeder from Alaska said her dogs were used for this, and I've read several reports of the dogs being used to remove geese from ovals - eg John Katz's books. We don't get musk ox in Australia, or geese in pest numbers, but Australian Cattle Dogs are found around the world, not just in Aus. Will find a reference. Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added specific reference for hazing geese, removed musk ox until a ref other than a breeder's website is located. Marj (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Haze" as a verb is presumably an AE usage. I don't know what it means, presumably the dogs don't hide the geese in fog. Is there a more global phrasing? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had 'herd' but they don't move them anywhere, just chase them away. Haze is not Australian, I don't know of any instances where we use dogs to move pest animals - the only instances of pest animals I know of here is seagulls roosting on cricket ovals during night games. Hazing is the ritual harassment that new frat members go through in the US, isn't it? A quick Google shows that hazing seems to be the term used, and it's used in the reference, but if 'herding' is clearer? Marj (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"herd" is better, American college slang is inappropriate for a primarily Oz-based article anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used "hazing" because it is the term used by Wildlife agencies to describe the process, but happy to go with "herding" My dictionary gives two meanings for hazing, neither slang: 1.Force (a new or potential recruit to the military, a college fraternity, etc.) to perform strenuous, humiliating, or dangerous tasks. 2.Drive (cattle) in a specified direction using horses.Marj (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • five kilometres — needs conversion, may be others
Converted distances and temperatures in News section. Don't think there are any others, I was rather pleased with myself when I found the convert template.Marj (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sentences start with a double space, some single. Please standardise (preferably single)
All double spaces replaced with single spaces Marj (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In refs, write US states and journal names in full
Just abbreviated all states in response to previous advice. Should only US states be in full or all states? Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha — that happens all the time, I had one edit asking for an explanation of "nasal", and another suggesting that the gloss I added should be removed. In the US case, there is a genuine problem for non-Americans, especially for non-obvious abbreviations like Mi and Ma. Not sure about others, I've tended to let NSW go because it's obvious, But I don't know if it's MoS Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the article I think Burlington, MA is the only one that might not be known (no slight to Burlington, MA intended) so I've changed the ref to the Australian edition. In the additional readings there are a couple, so I have expanded all the states in this section. Hope that meets consistency guidelines. Marj (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mamm Genome expanded, I think that's the only one. Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Binomial in ref 21 needs italics
Done Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breeds are sometimes italicized, sometimes not
I think the only time italics were used was for the 'made-up' breed "Australian Cattledog Queensland Heelers" I've replaced italics with quotation marks.Marj (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All good, thanks. Marj (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs a thorough copyedit to pick up other infelicities or inconsistencies
I've picked up many of these, will continue to review. Marj (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of further comments above. The licence on the skiing picture needs clarification, or it won't get through image review. I'd also be inclined to remove the source of the images from the caption, since it should be on the image page anyway. I'll have another read through in a day or two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the National Library if I could use the image here and they gave permission, as long as it has that caption (having it on the image page may be sufficient)Marj (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid licence, permission from someone other than yourself can only be given using the OTRS procedure (as with the now corrected licence for the soldier image). However, another editor has changed the ski licence to show that it's public domain under Australian, US and EU law because of its age. You are not obliged to credit either institution under the current licences, and you certainly don't need the catalogue number Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just doing what they told me to. Caption now without source information.Marj (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

(Resolved issues move to talk.)

Support. After modifying the format of some references for consistency, I'm happy with the formatting of the article. It's well organized and clearly written, and all statements seem to be backed by the sources. I believe this satisfied our FAC criteria. – Quadell (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I have no idea what "TCO's analysis of hit count of current FACs" means. This is my first Wikipedia article; I asked a number of peope active in the dog project and the Australia project for feedback on the article but weeks and months went past without a response from them. I have the Clark book beside me, I can locate page numbers in seconds, but as I explained above, I do not know how to give multiple page numbers in a way that is consistent with any referencing style I am familiar with. I apologise for wasting your time. Marj (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies necessary, I enjoy nitpicking articles at FAC :) Sorry, should have linked the TCO analysis. Please have a look at Suillus pungens as an example of one way to cite specific page #'s. Sasata (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Resolved issues moved to talk.)
I don’t know. I haven’t researched other breeds. All I know is that it was said specifically about the Australian Cattle Dog by a reputable trainer.
I don't know anything about training any dog breeds, but it just seems intuitive to me that this would be a general technique for training dogs, not specifically for this breed. Maybe other reviewers will have an opinion. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3rd-party opinion: The 1st paragraph of Training does apply to any breed, in my opinion, but we can't go beyond the source. I'm not sure the best way to deal with the situation. A reliable source does give this information specifically in regards to ACDs, and it's certainly true regarding them. It seems like it would be good to say something like "Like any dog breed, ...", except that I don't think that's what Ian Dunbar says in the source, and we can't put words in his mouth. So it's a quandry. – Quadell (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agility has been used by Cattle Dog owners to instil confidence in their dogs, and enhance their performance in training and competition. Marj (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Marj (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"cattle dog" is used generically here. Team A consisted of two purebred Border Collies, Team B consisted of a purebred Kelpie and a Border Collie. No Australian Cattle Dogs were studied. Marj (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to those journals, could you add the information? Marj (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If my purchasing these and adding the information is a requirement for Featured Article status, I would like to withdraw the nomination of Australian Cattle Dog for Featured Article. Marj (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need for purchasing; if you sent me an email, I can reply with the PDFs attached. You are also under no obligation to add any of this material; I'm just making suggestions for what I think might be improvements to the article, based on a review of the scholarly literature available on the subject. Please note that I haven't opposed the article's promotion (nor do I intend to). Sasata (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My much loved ACD has just died suddenly. I'm finding this very difficult and reading up on sarcomas and death rates will be even harder. I'll call in some favours and see what I can do about getting the info added. Marj (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Polioencephalomyelopathy' or 'Hereditary polioencephalomyelopathy of the Australian Cattle Dog' is a condition specific to the breed and therefore significant even if rare. I don't think that that one Cattle Dog being diagnosed with a genetic mutation found in mice, goats, other dog breeds including the Miniature Schnauzer, and humans is significant. But let me know if I should add a mention. Canis5855 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ACDs were reported as having an incidence of glaucoma of 1.5% which places them outside the top ten breeds for the condition. What was notable was that with ACDs and St Bernards more males than females had glaucoma, with other breeds more females were diagnosed. Prevalence of the breed-related glaucomas in pure-bred dogs in North America PMID 14982589 Again I don't think this is a significant health problem. Canis5855 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Cattle Dogs and Maltese were over-represented in the sample, but it stands to reason that in a convenience sample of the dogs treated at a single vet hospital the most popular dog breeds would be over-represented. (See also Congenital portosystemic shunts in Maltese and Australian Cattle Dogs DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1994.tb03382.x ) This is commented on in Association of breed with the diagnosis of congenital portosystemic shunts in dogs: 2,400 cases (1980–2002) saying "In our study, Australian Cattle Dogs, German Shepherd Dogs, and Dachshunds did not have significantly increased odds of CPSS, compared with the reference population. One reason for this discrepancy may be that these reports did not evaluate the proportion of accessions of CPSS among breeds and results for each breed were not compared with a standard or reference population" Canis5855 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again the study of mast cell tumours is a convenience sample from the University's vet centre and the methodology does not say whether allowance was made for popularity bias. The vets saw 56 dogs with mast cell tumours, and six of them were ACDs. The article is about the use of surgery as a treatment for MCT, the information on the breeds treated is really just background information. It is not a study of hereditary/genetic connections between the tumours and breeds of dog. Canis5855 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A single cattle dog bitch had three litters of puppies with a particular genetic mutation Canine spongiform leukoencephalomyelopathy is associated with a missense mutation in cytochrome b doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2005.06.009 But these reports get published because of their novelty... Canis5855 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to add a summary of these if you think it is necessary, but reading the references you gave and doing a bit of extra research leads me to believe that they are not specifically breed related conditions. Canis5855 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, thanks for looking into these. I don't have the expertise to assess their appropriateness for inclusion and am happy to defer to your decision to leave them out based on your analysis. Sasata (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review I was about ready to oppose this, but I decided to fix some of the more glaring issues instead. Suffice to say some of the licenses were completely botched and that had Commons had the staffing to check up on its files, you might have lost some of these images because of it.

Sven Manguard Wha? 13:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand many of these instructions, and am certainly not able to obey them. I have uploaded my own images that may avoid the problems you have identified with the existing images. ACD is an accepted alternate name for the breed. Can you explain why it can be used in the article but not in a file name? Marj (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The swimming image that you deleted as "not particularly useful" was in the activities section beside the information "Most ACDs love the water and are excellent swimmers." Should the information also be deleted? Marj (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I took out the wrong image. I've restored it. The image I was going to take out was the last image on the page, which starts with the first three words. My reasoning is as follows: Images and image captions should not introduce concepts that are not in the text, and should be related to the text. All four images in the History section fail that criteria, they are put there to make the article pretty. You should either justify them in the text, or remove them. Also, the injured dog is sporting a leg cast, but there's no discussion of leg injuries. Are they common? It is not in the text.
From the article: "The most common health problems are deafness and progressive blindness (both hereditary conditions) and accidental injury; otherwise, it is a robust breed with a lifespan of 12 to 14 years." and "A study of dogs presenting at Veterinary Colleges in the US and Canada over a thirty-year period described fractures, lameness and cruciate ligament tears as the most common conditions in the ACDs treated." Lameness and cruciate ligament tears, and fractures usually, are leg injuries. Marj (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also from the article: "...a Napa, California cattle rancher who met Alan McNiven while stationed in Australia during the War ..." US soldiers coming across the ACD during the War was the major reason for the breed being imported into the US. Marj (talk)
Alright. It would be better if the captions tied into the text a bit better, but I guess it is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the image description pages, I suppose I will fix them myself. De-acronym, by the way, means (in this case) 'use Australian Cattle Dog instead of ACD', and 'use New South Wales instead of NSW'. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
De-acronym I can work out. But what is "the image lab" and "a local admin"? Marj (talk)
Wikipedia:Image lab (it's where people take images to have them worked on by file editing experts)
Local admin is an admin on English Wikipedia. I specify local because when dealing with files, it helps to explicitly differentiate between Commons Admins and Admins here.
I'm not thrilled with this article, on many levels, but the images are now passable. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I have never edited anything on the Commons, but now have a better idea of how to name and describe any files I upload and to caption them in articles.Marj (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed your example and taken the image captions from the wording in the text. I have now implemented all of your advice on image quality, licensing, file naming, file descriptions, image positioning and captioning. If you can specify any other problems you see I will fix them immediately. Marj (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I'm going on the record as being very much against the "In the news" section. Wikipedia is not for the collection of anecdotes. The quote from the third section, regarding the dog protecting its master, can be incorporated into the other text, but the rest should be scrapped. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you describe them as "anecdotes" the information is certainly published - and in more than one place. As I said above, an "in the media" section is recommended by the Wiki Project Dogs, and there is such a section in the FA Beagle. The news stories demonstrate the character of the breed, even if celebrity owners and movie appearances do not. The section has been shortened, but I would strongly argue for its retention. Marj (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotes don't have to be unpublished, and don't have to be inaccurate. I consider the use of them in this case unprofessional, however, and am saddened to hear that they are actually recommended. However since consensus is on your side, you can include them. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are generally oral. Anecdote is from the Greek 'anekdotos' - unpublished. I can see your objection to the listing of film stars who own the dogs and the tv series they have starred in, which many breed articles include, but hope you accept that these news stories do give information on the type of dog. There is now a book about Sophie. Marj (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment - I suspect some more tweaks could be found in the prose but I don't see any deal-breakers left. I like the IPC sections and notable owners, but in the interests of harmony won't be a stickler too much about their inclusion. However some of the anecdotes were widely reported and it is a breed noted for these things. Having a read-through now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A Cattle Dog with a single mask shows the breed's typical alert expression."
Reviewed - substituting 'Australian Cattle Dog' 'Cattle Dog' or 'it'.
" ...the Australian Cattle Dog is intelligent and responsive; both of these traits can be an advantage in training .."
"Many of a Cattle Dog's natural behaviours are undesirable in a pet:" Marj (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, why didn't I think of that :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Overall I found this an excellent article, but I cannot support an article with a trivia section, and "In the News" is definitely trivia. I looked at the FA for beagle, and the In popular culture section there is structured very differently and more generically. On a minor note, why are the names of individual dogs in italics? Those are names and should not be offset in that way. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a heading like, "In popular culture" is certainly broader. I think material like this is worthy of inclusion as the dog is notable for its companionship. What we need is some encompassing statements to that fact, which then frames a series of examples. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Karanacs, I don't suppose it would change your mind to note that the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force specifically recommends sections on "Famous (breedname)... e.g., Famous Foxhounds"? – Quadell (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WT:FAC would be a good place to discuss MOS guidelines established by a small group of editors without broad consensus and sometimes in conflict with general Wikipedia policies (we've seen that on other FACs, not singling this one out), and how FAC should handle these when they (all too often) first encounter a broader group of editors here at FAC. Any group of editors can put up a guideline page without it being subjected to broad consensus; to my knowledge, the only WikiProject Guidelines that were subjected to broad consensus before being adopted were MilHist and MEDMOS. The way forward on this article is to notice the differences in writing between that at Beagle and here, Lassie for example is "famous", a collection of local interest news stories do not a famous dog make, and regardless of whether some content remains, it should be added in a way that doesn't lend itself to every Tom Dick and Harry just adding every new local interest story to the list-- the prose discussion at Beagle accomplishes that. The list here does not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which would go a long way to being solved with some sourced general covering statements on the dog in popular culture. They are pretty iconic here, and some of the items are more than just "local interest". I might have some spare time in a few hours to see what can be found. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cas, that could help (they're pretty iconic round my way, too-- have one in the family, have considered recusing here since I adore these dogs), but we might still want to discuss the general MOS WikiProject guideline problem at WT:FAC, since any Project can put up anything these days (unlike what WP:MEDMOS went through, which involved broad community consensus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In popular culture" section from before the review process re-instated. Section expanded to explain the symbolic role of the ACD in popular culture and add more references. Section then deleted. Marj (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Version before you deleted it-- it needed some work (mostly trimming), but was a very good start-- not clear why you deleted it. It seeemed to list every random semi-notable Tom Dick or Harry who has a dog of this breed; Beagle provides a good example to follow (it mentions one person who owned a beagle-- a president-- and explains why we should care, so the entry isn't just a list of trivia). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article need to have an "In popular culture" section to be approved as a Featured Article? Marj (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not for most entities, mainly because there will be louder objections to a IPC section with citing issues than objections to not one at all. I thought structurally it was a big step in the right direction but it is frustrating when you can't find the right sources to back it up. I've had to leave out material I couldn't cite properly before - we are an encyclopedia to reflect on sourcing. So given the issues, being conservative is ok here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section is on the ACD discussion page with a request for references - it's too much work for me at this stage of the semester. It can be re-visited if the Dog Project guidelines are ever reviewed and confirmed as discussed above. Marj (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is salvageable content in the paragraphs you posted to the talk page, but it you plan to add all of that at some point, I would be opposing. Imagine if, for example, an FA on popular dog breeds liks Yorkies or Labs listed every movie they were in and every Tom Dick and Harry who owned one of them. That is trivia. Again, Beagle shows you how to do it, you have a good start, it only needs trimming. No, you don't have to have an IPC section for an FA, but if you plan to later add that content, without review, it will become a problem (and will attract cruft), so why not get it right now? It's almost there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who this Tom Dick and Harry are, or why you think this list comes close to even 10% of the media appearances of Cattle Dogs in Australia. Every appearance is at least sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. I did copy Beagle even using the same wording, listing the films as in Beagle "They have appeared in numerous films, taking a central role in Cats & Dogs and its sequel, and the title roles in the adaptation of Phyllis Reynolds Naylor's book Shiloh. They have played supporting roles in films including Audition, The Monster Squad and The Royal Tenenbaums, and on television in Star Trek: Enterprise, EastEnders, The Wonder Years, and To the Manor Born among others." and giving only one example of a celebrity owner. I disagree that it is "almost there". Locating a reference for information that is so widely known that it is not written about is a time consuming process. Marj (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of doing anything with an "In popular culture" section in this or any other dog article until the Wikipedia community is in agreement on whether such a section should exist - as I said above. And probably not even then. I will not be adding it back to Australian Cattle Dog. Marj (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of trivia. I can't help thinking that while the media coverage of Sophie Tucker's desert island adventure is too trivial to mention here, when the movie is released next year her exploits will have a whole article devoted to them. Marj (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Dick and Harry came from the Dog task force guideline page linked above ("try not to just list every random semi-notable Tom Dick or Harry who has a dog of this breed"); the proposed text reads that way to me, since most of those people aren't soooooo famous that we need to know they have a cattle dog (again, gazillions of people have Beagles, it mentions only one, and tells us why). I do think it was a good start other than that, anyway, even if that guideline needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: it is not "proposed text" it is "deleted text". Thanks, Marj (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Cultural Significance" section seen in White-bellied Sea Eagle might be a better option for Project Dogs than "In popular culture", though not sure where and how that discussion would take place. Marj (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I looked at the deleted section and liked most of the first paragraph, although I don't think it is necessary to list the movies as examples - if anything, I'd make that a footnote. The second paragraph is, in my opinion, completely trivia. However, it doesn't look like there is solid sourcing for the first paragraph, so in that caseI agree with leaving out the information completely. Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be very minor grounds on which to oppose the article after six weeks of reviews and revisions. The images, their placement and their captions have been previously reviewed in detail and passed. A previous reviewer moved the image that now sandwiches the paragraph. There is discussion of how US forces became aware of the ACD during WWII. If you know of refereneces on the ACDs introduction to Canada, the UK or Europe (for which I could find no references) I'd be very happy to include them. Marj (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image moved (again) - new caption supports its re-location.
Caption revised (again) to "US soldiers met the Cattle Dog mascots of Australian divisions overseas. This puppy is being bathed in preparation for a visit by General Douglas MacArthur"
Of the approximate 1,460,000 readers of the sections on Canada and the UK, none have challenged the information or suggested alternative references. A new lit search uncovered no new information. I am opposed to having only a USA section. Marj (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sandwiching issue comes from the MOS. Since there is a picture of a GI with a ACD it seems unnecessary to have the picture of the puppy too if you are trying to illustrate that GIs met and fell in love with the breed. I will strike out the sourcing question. You may want to add a copy of the footnote higher up in each paragraph so from the beginning the reader knows that this who paragraph comes from a single source as well as the one footnote at the end. If my oppose, that is decently easy to change, is seen as flimsy, then sandy will ignore it. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeated the references after the first sentences, which is contrary to previous advice.
Stick a fork in me, I'm done. The nomination will have to stand or fall on its current form, unless another editor wants to get involved. Marj (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I hope you enjoy your time on the main page. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is better for your suggestions Marj (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick read, I noticed several problems in the prose:

There may be more problems like this. Otherwise, the article is getting close to promotion. Ucucha (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miscolour is a common noun amongst animal breeders and is used by the source.
Coren gives a number of different types of intelligence, "obedience command trainability" is the dog's ability to be trained to follow obedience commands. I disagree that the words are redundant, rated on another intelligence scale, eg "instinctive intelligence" the ACD is ranked differently.

BTW The role of the delegates is one of many aspects of the review process that I don't understand. My reading of the info suggested that the delegate's job was to decide if consensus had been reached between the nominator and the reviewers, not to conduct an additional review. I need the process to end. Is there at point at which it can be said that there have been sufficient reviews? Marj (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Request to close: I have spent every spare moment of the last six weeks working on this article. I have no more time to give to it. If the difference between a good article and a featured article comes down to the position of a colon, so be it.Marj (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC) On consideration, respect for those who have supported the nomination leads me to withdraw my request. I am still unable to do further editing of the article, however. Marj (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the only considerations are prose, I'll be glad to do the copyedits. Unless there are major issues, I can probably take over the fixes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made one adjustment to a pic because of text sandwiching. Otherwise all seems in order. Brad (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ OptiGen (5 August 2005). "prcd-PRA Test for Australian Cattle Dogs and Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dogs". OptiGen website. Ithaca, NY: OptiGen. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
More